Debate on Vaccines

[Emsyboo]

I have seen a few threads where mums have an opinion pro or con vaccine and asking for more information I would like to know your reasons for being one or the other.
My MIL is very anti vaccine and told me 4 out of 30 children die from vaccinations - I don't believe this to be true think their may be a decimal point missing although I have seen some posts from people who seem to have backed up information about vaccines.

I am pro vaccine but like to see both sides before I make a decision so if anyone has any information pro or con and more importantly has info to back up I would be really interested.

Thanks

OK, goosberrybushes, are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss any aspect of vaccination other than the MMR? Or that any attempt to talk about any other aspect is because people don't want to talk about MMR?

People have said some very challenging things about the public health benefits of vaccination and I was very keen to hear more. I am also very keen to talk about MMR, but you and others don;t seem to be prepared actually to discuss things, because you think you know what I think and go on what's in your head rather than what's in my post. And you ignore things like my example of the takeup of polio vaccine v. infection rates in Nigeria. For example.

I'm saying it's because you don't want to talk about MMR and recent difficulties with vaccinations, definitely. Absolutely. It's much easier for you to talk about vaccines generally that the specifics of MMR damage and other vaccine damage, which is hugely more difficult for you to address. The debate is generally widened out from MMR by people like imageine who find it uncomfortable, because they feel on safer ground. So much safer than saying to thousands of parents who report that their children regressed to autism after vaccination: "I know that you are not telling the truth".

That's just so hard for you to deal with.

And yes, imagiene is making things up. For fun? Who knows. Maybe trying to live up to his/her name?

Actually imadgeine, you have just proved that you clearly don't get it.

Re. The hpv vaccine, it only protects against certain strains of hpv, not all of them and because it is a new vaccine no one knows how long any protection offered will last. It is very very important to continue to have regular smears even if you have been vaccinated. I find it very worrying that so many people think that if they have this vaccine they won't get cervical cancer. I'm worried that it is creating a false sense of security among young people.

and their parents!

I do apologise but this is the second time this has come up and as we are all supposed to know something about this subject -

a. eradicate
b. quarantine

as you were

(bm obviously not you on that one)

Just re-reading - actually, despite amused tone earlier, am shocked at Imagd's deliberate misreading of bubblymummy. How she can possibly have reached these conclusions is a mystery, unless she already had them ready to roll out and is still hysterically doing so despite bm's very cogent recognition of realities.

Bm, in the case of my dear friend her cancer was caused by HPV, surely some level of protection combined with vigilant screening is better than no protection at all?
Im thanks for ur sympathies. My post was carefully worded to say what i meant.
HPV vaccine can help prevent contracting a disease that can lead to cancer.
I don't think we can belittle just what it IS able to do and I only wish my friend had had access to it

Are we talking anecdotes again? Would you like to hear some anecdotes about people damaged by the HPV vaccine?

I may seem harsh pims - but anecdotal evidence is so often described as worthless

if you want pro-vaccine anecdotes then thousands of vaccine damage "anecdotes" are available too

her life could have been saved, the evidence to support this is not anecdotal, it was confirmed by biopsy to be a strain known to be prevented by the vaccine - fact

Pins, no vaccine is 100% effective. I was about to post that it could only potentially offer protection if it was one of the strains that the vaccine covered but I see that the biopsy showed that it was. Honestly, regardless of whether you have the vaccine, the only way to protect yourself against cervical cancer is to have regular screening to detect any cervical changes early. I think they start too late in England and aren't screened often enough - I fear the vaccine may decrease the likelihood of women going for smears because they think they are protected and don't need them.

Because i can't get a straight answer to a straightforward question. Just a lot of bluster and distraction. I would just like to know what lies behind the scattergun approach to debate. If you guys do accept that vaccines have some value why don't you stand up and say so . If you don't then say that.
If you have some intermediate position e.g. you have faith in some vaccines but not in others, then that also would be helpful to know.
Smallpox an extreme example and the clearest, least controversial example i can offer.
The east african thought experiment also an extreme hypothetical example trying to tease out what ground we are debating on.
HPV a great advance and based on clever science. Good points bubbleymummy on this topic. So you DO think some vaccines work then at least against some strains of HPV some of the time. If you have a daughter will you go for this?
pimsoclock was not offering a pro vaccine anecdote! She was saying her friend died, and that it is possible she would have been protected from the disease if she had had access to this vaccine. That is not "a pro vaccine anecdote".

Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, I think what I am hopefully demonstrating is that in this very personal instance, a vaccine could have saved a life.
It cant be an isolated case and surely you have to accept that for me, the availability of this vaccine is a positive albeit too late for my friend.

Regardless of if you are pro or anti vaccine, I think we need to separate the mistakes of the past with what we currently have available to us in the present and consider if there is a place for them in the future.

We could come up with similar arguments for and against the introduction and use of anti biotics. They have saved soo many lives but they are not without side effects and potentially disastrous effects on public health (development of mass resistance etc.)

However anyone who has personally seen the benefits of antibiotics administered to a septic patient in intensive care or a child in the high dependancy ward will thank god that they were inventive.

I suppose what I am saying is there is not hard and fast rule to determine what is right and what is wrong here. We can certainly learn from mistakes, and be vigilant to any potential problems. But on the whole we have to accept that there are positive and negative points in all aspects of modern medicine.

You can not lump all vaccine problems into one succinct argument because there are too many different types of vaccines/severity of disease/ level of efficacy across the board that would make it impossible to come out with one absolute conclusion.

There are definitely points to be taken from both sides. But for me I could not categorically apply them across all elements of the vaccination debate

Pims there's plenty of anecdotal evidence on the other side. All it means is that you have to take the other side seriously if you want your stories/anecdote/evidence taken seriously. There are plenty of "very personal instances" about the damage caused by vaccines.

"Because i can't get a straight answer to a straightforward question. Just a lot of bluster and distraction. I would just like to know what lies behind the scattergun approach to debate."

!!!this from the person who responded to a direct reference to measles figures declining in an MMR conversation by suddenly saying --- "hey what about smallpox"

Well here are some non anti-vaccine anecdotes: two thousand families report their children regressed after MMR vaccine.

That's not anti vaccine - that's just saying how their lives would have been different if they hadn't been vaccinated.

imadgeine, you keep accusing other people of this 'scattergum' approach but you are the one leaping around between measles, smallpox and tb meningitis!

RE the HPV vaccine, I honestly think it is too new to say whether or not it works and for how long and whether it has any negative consequences - direct side effects (I believe there are already some concerns about this) or for example, fewer people going for smear tests because they think they are protected resulting in later detection of abnormal changes. I wouldn't go for it myself, nor would I bring my daughter (if I have one!) for it. If cervical changes are detected early, they can be successfully treated. They can be detected early by regular screening. The vaccine does not eliminate the need for that screening so any changes will be picked up and the treatment is the same regardless. TBH I don't really see the point. HPV does not always cause cervical cancer - in the vast majority of cases it is completely benign and goes away by itself. Other risk factors have been identified as increasing the risk eg herpes infection alongside HPV, getting pregnant at an early age, using the contraceptive pill etc...

PIMS, the vaccine MAY have saved a life but an earlier smear test would have been more likely too. I was really shocked to hear how late smear tests are offered in England and how spaced out they are! To me, that is risking far too many lives.

You know what Madge you're being horribly insulting.

There are people here who had their children vaccinated - and you accuse them of thinking vaccines are the spawn of the devil because of the tragic experience which followed.

In short - you suck.

more likely to*

Bm nothing can undo what has been done it's a shame that you can't get over the principle of what u are trying to argue for to see the personal side of this.
I agree with u about screening, etc
I'm not asking that u compromise ur view, just that you recognise that it's not quite so clear cut and in this case there is iron clad personal experience of a tragic loss that could have been prevented by a service(vaccine) that is now widely available.
She was 23 and left behind a six year old daughter. Need I say anymore on personal preventable tragedy directly related to the provision or omission of a vaccine

PIMS, I'm sorry but it isn't as clear cut as - 'if she had been vaccinated she would have lived' The vaccine may not have worked on her, she may have been otherwise predisposed to it etc. The only thing that could actually have saved her was screening. If the cells had been identified then they could have been removed. Am I right in thinking that smear tests aren't offered over there until you are 25? So she wasn't even eligible for one when she died. That is truly tragic - for your friend and her daughter. I would be campaigning for a change in that policy rather than promoting the vaccine tbh.

I do find this all extremely baffling. I don;t know why gooseberrybushes is accusing people of being horribly insulting. I don't know why she keeps saying that making a point about the efficacy of vaccination in improving public health is accusing MMR parents of lying.

I suspect it's because she is is aware of at least one person on this thread who believes that vaccinations don;t work at all, and because she is too intelligent to believe such rubbish, she is throwing accusations around as a diversionary tactic.

Do you want to name that person seeker?

Of course. rosi7.

Much better to have these things out in the open :)

I'm not sure why a diversionary tactic would be necessary though - we don't all have to agree with each other about everything. There is obviously a spectrum about how people feel about vaccines.